New Jersey History (NJH - E-Journal)
Not a member yet
1151 research outputs found
Sort by
Interpersonal Wishes and Fears with Regard to Internalized Attachment Figures: Differing Focus of Two Case Formulation Methods that use SASB
This commentary is organized in parallel with Westerman’s (2021b) comparison to include focus on (1) the formulation methods used by IRT and Interpersonal Defense Theory, and then (2) their treatment implications. In each major section, comments center first on comparison of the approaches in general, and then turn to a focus on the details of Sharon’s case. In sum, we wish to underscore the need for continued empirical work in both IRT and Interpersonal Defense Theory traditions as ways to advance our field. We see each method as offering a different scope and focal areas of concern. With a mind toward the advancement of research and application along both lines of thought, our commentary provides an overview of how we see areas of alignment, divergence, and their potential meaning for theory and practice. The two methods share a great deal in terms of assumptive worldviews, prioritization of relational material, and even specific measurement methodology (SASB). Where the methods diverge, we believe it is primarily because they seek answers to different kinds of questions
Building Pedagogy: Studying Architecture and Preservation in American Art and Architectural History
In this essay I discuss how my course attempts to broaden the definition of the American architectural canon by bringing in the discipline of preservation and, by extension the discussion of vernacular architecture. Throughout the course students are given assignments meant to engage with all levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. By highlighting specific assignments such as a National Register of Historic Nomination Form, and a student led class discussion on Colonial Williamsburg I will show how students engage with the upper levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. At the same time this essay demonstrates how a course on architecture of the United States allows this material to become more inclusive, dynamic and comprehensible to a diverse student population. Ultimately, a course on American architectural history adds another perspective to the discipline of art history of the United States
What Can We Learn About Therapeutic Change From Case History Data? The Research Jury Method with the Couple Case of "Carl" and "Sandra"
The purpose of this study was to explore the usefulness of using case history data to assess change in psychotherapy. This was a follow up to previous investigations utilizing a "research jury method" to evaluate psychotherapy outcome. Three judges studied the critical first five sessions of a ten session video of emotionally focused therapy with a couple, Carl and Sandra. They took intensive notes and then functioned as a "jury"” to evaluate the evidence. They concluded that the evidence from within the case history is strong that the couple changed for the better. The evidence also supported the conclusion that therapy contributed to the change, although, by their judgment, at the "preponderance of evidence" level. Finally, the evidence was used to evaluate how therapy contributed to change. It was concluded that the most likely factors contributed by the therapist were her helping the couple see that each other’s underlying intentions were positive, and by fostering their hope. Evidence also supported the contributions the clients themselves made through their taking responsibility for themselves, through their exploring their past experiences, and through their creativity. Limitations are discussed and conclusions for the evaluation of psychotherapy are drawn
Guest Editor Introduction: Cultivating our Field through SoTL Practice: Teaching and Learning the Art History of the United States
How Do We Decide Which of Two Case Formulations Is Correct? Commentary on Westerman and Critchfield et al.
This commentary takes a meta-view of the articles in this module by Westerman (2021a), and by Critchfield, Dobner-Pereira and Stucker (2021a), which offer two overlapping but also different formulations of the same case. It raises the question of whether there is only one true formulation of a clinical case (correspondence theory), or whether any one of several would qualify as accurate (coherence theory). A third alternative is that the truth-value of a formulation is a function of its ability to predict which therapist interventions will most help the client (pragmatic theory). A study is described in which the relative accuracy of two different formulations of the same case was put to the test in predicting which therapist interventions led to client progress. I propose that the current authors compare the pragmatic value of their formulations in a similar manner
Commentary—Extending the Boundaries of Systematic Case Study Research: Conceptual and Methodological Issues
In this commentary we discuss the two examples of systematic case study research in this issue: Miller et al., (2021), who continue the development of the quasi-judicial Panels of Psychological Inquiry method by applying it to a child client with an autistic spectrum condition; and Bohart et al. (2021), who apply their research jury approach to a video recorded case of Emotionally-Focused Therapy for couples. We open by briefly summarizing the main issues addressed in our previous commentary (Stephen & Elliott, 2011), which involved the same authors; we also note some key developments in systematic case study research over the past ten years. The rest of our commentary is divided into three parts. First, we look at more general conceptual issues in systematic case study research, including situations in which systematic case studies are likely to be most useful; the problem of overly broad research questions; the definition and assessment of outcome; and the thorny issue of causality. In the second part, we turn our attention to methodological issues raised by the two articles, returning to the questions of what counts as evidence in systematic case study research (here the use of observational methods for assessing client change and change processes), but also to the processes by which research judges or jurors make decisions about knowledge claims and methods for generalizing from one case to other cases. In the final main section, we offer more substantive commentary on Miller et al. (2021), from the point of view of autism research. We start by putting the DIR/Floortime intervention in context before raising key diagnostic issues that we think circumscribe the case and spelling out uncertainties about the nature of the intervention used. We round off this section with a set of proposals for future systematic single case research on interventions for autism. We close our commentary with a brief set of recommendations
Comparing Interpersonal Defense Theory and Interpersonal Reconstructive Therapy and Their Views of Sharon’s Case
This paper compares the approaches to Sharon’s case presented in two articles that appear earlier in this module, my paper (Westerman, 2021a), which was based on Interpersonal Defense Theory, and the paper by Critchfield, Dobner-Pereira, and Stucker (2021a), which was based on Interpersonal Reconstructive Therapy (IRT). I begin by considering differences in general between the ways in which these two perspectives approach case formulation. I then turn to comparing the formulations of Sharon’s case based on the two perspectives. Among other things, this part of the paper contrasts IRT’s focus on copy processes and the Gift of Love with Interpersonal Defense Theory’s focus on functionalist processes that involve the temporal organization of the parts of noncoordinating defensive interpersonal patterns. The second half of the paper compares the treatment implications of the two approaches in general terms and as they relate to Sharon’s case in particular. Implications for treatment are discussed regarding both insight-oriented interventions and enacted interventions at the level of therapy relationship processes
Editor's Introduction: The Psychotherapy Case of "Sharon" -- A Comparative Analysis Using Contrasting Interpersonal Theories
This article is a brief orientation to the current PCSP issue, which presents and compares two contrasting, interpersonal theories—Interpersonal Defense Theory and Interpersonal Reconstructive Therapy—for developing a case formulation and treatment plan for the case of "Sharon," a 28-year, unmarried social worker with no children. At the beginning of Sharon’s therapy, which was part of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), Sharon presented with comorbid anxiety and personality disorders. A major focus of her problems was being stuck between being simultaneously drawn to and repelled by "Jeff," her former finance. In reading this article series, a number of important themes to keep in mind are mentioned, including (a) comparing theoretical similarities and differences between the two theories; (b) the differences in the information selected by each theory from the large database of quantitative and qualitative clinical information in the database generated by the RCT; and (c) the enrichment of theory that occurs when it is applied to an individual case.
The Case of Sharon Considered from the Vantage Point of Interpersonal Defense Theory
As part of this project comparing analyses of the case of Sharon based on Interpersonal Defense Theory (e.g., Westerman, 2018, 2019) and Interpersonal Reconstructive Therapy (e.g., Benjamin & Critchfield, 2010), this paper considers the case from the vantage point of Interpersonal Defense Theory. The first half of the paper presents the theory’s novel approach to case formulation. It begins by explaining the kind of case formulations the Interpersonal Defense Theory calls for in general and then presents a formulation of Sharon’s case based on the theory, illustrating that formulation with an examination of a transcript of a session excerpt from her therapy. The second half of the paper discusses the theory’s implications for treatment, beginning with a presentation of its treatment implications in general and then turning to its specific implications for Sharon’s case. Overall, the paper shows that the theory sheds new light on how to understand Sharon’s problems, provides a possible explanation for why the treatment, which was based on Brief Adaptive Psychotherapy (Pollack, Flegenheimer, Kaufman, & Sadow, 1992), resulted in a poor outcome, and suggests a different therapeutic approach that might have been more successful
Making American Art an Engaging General Education Course
Humanities courses are often populated with students who primarily take these offerings to meet General Education requirements. American art classes can provide opportunities for students to think analytically and consider what is included as well as what is omitted in visual and textual formats. This article provides examples and the pedagogical rationales for a range of in-class and out-of-class activities that enable active learning, critical thinking, creativity, and kinesthetic engagement. Creating on-line resources to replace a textbook, taking field trips on or adjacent to campus, and exhibition critique and label-writing activities can be easily adapted to campus- and online-learning settings at little or no cost. These approaches address some of the challenges that the academy, like the museum, face: who, how, and what one learns; how to balance the canon with works of art, topics, issues, and ideas related to those who have traditionally not been represented; and how to equalize access to institutions